Industry news
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Teddy Von Frankin
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all bel |
 |
|
Government uses panic over global warming to increase its own power by
convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be saved
by letting the government take total control.
Global Warming 101
John Perna
JBS
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Here is an undeniable scientific truth: The volume of the water that is
produced when ice melts is exactly equal to the volume of the water that the
ice displaced, when it was floating. Water expands when it freezes into ice.
That is why freezing pipes break. That is why ice floats on top of water.
If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would not
go up by one inch, or by one millimeter. If every iceberg in the world were
to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up at all.
There is no land at the North Pole. There is land at the South Pole. The
surface area of the oceans is many times as large as the surface of the land
which contains ice. If all of the ice that is on land was to melt, this
would make almost no difference in the level of the ocean.
Carbon dioxide is to a plant what oxygen is to an animal. More carbon
dioxide means that plants grow better and faster. When plants grow better
and faster, the total amount of plant matter increases. Increases in the
amount of plant matter cause more consumption of carbon dioxide. More
consumption of carbon dioxide lowers the level of carbon dioxide.
New ozone is continuously produced, at an incredible rate, by sunlight
passing through air. Ozone is continuously decomposing back into oxygen, no
matter what man does. The natural production and decomposition of ozone is
so large that mankind could not change this balance of nature if he wanted
to do so. Halogenated hydrocarbons would be destroyed by contact with ozone,
but halogenated hydrocarbons are heavier than air, and do not go up to the
ozone layer. Mankind has never produce enough halogenated hydrocarbons to
have any effect at all on the total amount of ozone. Ozone fluctuations are
results of the cycles of the sun.
These cycles have been occurring since the beginning of Earth. Every species
that is still here is one that has been able to adapt and to survive them.
The equilibriums of nature are more powerful than anything that man can do.
Trying to shift any of the equilibriums of nature would be like trying to
make an ocean have two different water levels.
Government uses a lack of understanding of basic science on the part of the
public to increase its own power by convincing people that they are in
danger, and that they can only be saved by letting the government institute
more controls.
In short, nature regulates itself. Government could never regulate nature.
But it can regulate people.
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
Newsmax
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead
point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth - changes in the sun.
One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on
Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a
natural - and not a human-induced - cause, according to one scientist's
controversial theory."
Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed
that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars' south pole had been shrinking
for three consecutive summers.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in
Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on
Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National
Geographic article.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,"
he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the
warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the
increase in solar irradiance."
The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun -
variations in its magnetic field.
Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains
that the Earth's climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded
stars.
The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and
cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder
temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano,
communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment &
Public Works, on the committee's Web site.
"Cosmic ray intensities - and therefore cloudiness - keep changing because
the sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming
from the galaxy before they reach the Earth," the Danish report by Henrik
Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.
Whenever the sun's magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high
and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed
300 years ago.
Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth's
climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the
Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright
spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bradly Wiebe
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all |
|
|
Teddy Von Frankin wrote:
| Quote: |
Government uses panic over global warming to increase its own power by
convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be saved
by letting the government take total control.
Global Warming 101
John Perna
JBS
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Here is an undeniable scientific truth: The volume of the water that is
produced when ice melts is exactly equal to the volume of the water that the
ice displaced, when it was floating. Water expands when it freezes into ice.
That is why freezing pipes break. That is why ice floats on top of water.
If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would not
go up by one inch, or by one millimeter. If every iceberg in the world were
to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up at all.
|
The amount of water on Earth has never changed and will never change.
It only changes states. Ice takes 9% more space than water does. The
only way that one could argue that the ocean levels would rise is the
properties of water versus ice. While ice tends to float to the top of
water and even rise up from the water, water will find it's own level.
Ice that has reverted its state back to water will join with the water
to find level, and the level of the water will rise proportionally with
the new water that has joined it. The surface area of water on this
planet is considerably larger than the volume taken by ice, so if all
the ice were to melt it would take a considerable amount to cause the
ocean (essentially it is one big ocean, not a bunch of different ones)
to rise a significant measurement. I've read that the total volume of
ice, both grounded and floating, constitutes 2 percent of the worlds
water. If it were to all melt, the volume of non-ice water on Earth
would increase by much less than two percent because we must take into
account the fact that the ice takes 9% more space than water does.
To put it into perspective, if exactly 1 liter of water represented all
of the worlds non-ice water, we would need an ice cube that contained a
mere 20 milliliters of water to represent the ice. When that ice melts,
our non-ice water would increase from 1000 milliliters to 1020
milliliters, barely measurable in the glass. Now, imagine that we were
to put that glass of water on a table. If that table were exactly 1
square meter, that glass would have to be 70 percent of that area to
accurately represent the Earth. Now, melt that little 20 milliliter ice
cube (which by the way takes less volume than when it was frozen as
stated above) , and spread that 20 milliliters over 70% of the 1 square
meter area, and you have a water rise in that glass that is so
insignificant that it could be assumed meaningless.
I guess what I am trying to say to you is, very good post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Chom Noamsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all |
|
|
| Quote: |
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EF9A24.4EDEC823@shaw.ca...
The amount of water on Earth has never changed and will never change.
|
Not true, there is a set amount of oxygen and hydrogen. Photochemical
dissociation can break up water into hydrogen and oxygen. Photosynthesis is
CO2 + H2O + sunlight produces organic compounds and oxygen. Burning
hydrogen and oxygen creates water. Animal respiration takes oxygen and
produces CO2. Atmospheric hydrogen is so light that it escapes the earth's
gravity and is lost forever.
| Quote: |
It only changes states. Ice takes 9% more space than water does. The
only way that one could argue that the ocean levels would rise is the
properties of water versus ice. While ice tends to float to the top of
water and even rise up from the water, water will find it's own level.
Ice that has reverted its state back to water will join with the water
to find level, and the level of the water will rise proportionally with
the new water that has joined it. The surface area of water on this
planet is considerably larger than the volume taken by ice, so if all
the ice were to melt it would take a considerable amount to cause the
ocean (essentially it is one big ocean, not a bunch of different ones)
to rise a significant measurement. I've read that the total volume of
ice, both grounded and floating, constitutes 2 percent of the worlds
water. If it were to all melt, the volume of non-ice water on Earth
would increase by much less than two percent because we must take into
account the fact that the ice takes 9% more space than water does.
To put it into perspective, if exactly 1 liter of water represented all
of the worlds non-ice water, we would need an ice cube that contained a
mere 20 milliliters of water to represent the ice. When that ice melts,
our non-ice water would increase from 1000 milliliters to 1020
milliliters, barely measurable in the glass. Now, imagine that we were
to put that glass of water on a table. If that table were exactly 1
square meter, that glass would have to be 70 percent of that area to
accurately represent the Earth. Now, melt that little 20 milliliter ice
cube (which by the way takes less volume than when it was frozen as
stated above) , and spread that 20 milliliters over 70% of the 1 square
meter area, and you have a water rise in that glass that is so
insignificant that it could be assumed meaningless.
I guess what I am trying to say to you is, very good post.
|
It was a terrible post, filled with childlike scientific logic. For one
thing, it failed to mention thermal expansion. Cold water takes up less
volume than warm water, as the oceans warm their volume will expand even if
no additional water is added. But there will be additional water... from
Greenland, from the Antarctic, from glaciers, from melting permafrost. By
most scientific estimates the Greenland icesheet alone would raise sea level
5-7 meters if it melted into the sea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bradly Wiebe
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all |
|
|
Chom Noamsky wrote:
| Quote: |
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EF9A24.4EDEC823@shaw.ca...
The amount of water on Earth has never changed and will never change.
Not true, there is a set amount of oxygen and hydrogen. Photochemical
dissociation can break up water into hydrogen and oxygen. Photosynthesis is
CO2 + H2O + sunlight produces organic compounds and oxygen. Burning
hydrogen and oxygen creates water. Animal respiration takes oxygen and
produces CO2. Atmospheric hydrogen is so light that it escapes the earth's
gravity and is lost forever.
|
Getting a little picky, are we? Actually you are getting incredibly
picky. Aside from rare and minute changes, such as dissociation, the
amount of water on Earth is roughly the same as it was after the planet
was created.
| Quote: |
It only changes states. Ice takes 9% more space than water does. The
only way that one could argue that the ocean levels would rise is the
properties of water versus ice. While ice tends to float to the top of
water and even rise up from the water, water will find it's own level.
Ice that has reverted its state back to water will join with the water
to find level, and the level of the water will rise proportionally with
the new water that has joined it. The surface area of water on this
planet is considerably larger than the volume taken by ice, so if all
the ice were to melt it would take a considerable amount to cause the
ocean (essentially it is one big ocean, not a bunch of different ones)
to rise a significant measurement. I've read that the total volume of
ice, both grounded and floating, constitutes 2 percent of the worlds
water. If it were to all melt, the volume of non-ice water on Earth
would increase by much less than two percent because we must take into
account the fact that the ice takes 9% more space than water does.
To put it into perspective, if exactly 1 liter of water represented all
of the worlds non-ice water, we would need an ice cube that contained a
mere 20 milliliters of water to represent the ice. When that ice melts,
our non-ice water would increase from 1000 milliliters to 1020
milliliters, barely measurable in the glass. Now, imagine that we were
to put that glass of water on a table. If that table were exactly 1
square meter, that glass would have to be 70 percent of that area to
accurately represent the Earth. Now, melt that little 20 milliliter ice
cube (which by the way takes less volume than when it was frozen as
stated above) , and spread that 20 milliliters over 70% of the 1 square
meter area, and you have a water rise in that glass that is so
insignificant that it could be assumed meaningless.
I guess what I am trying to say to you is, very good post.
It was a terrible post, filled with childlike scientific logic. For one
thing, it failed to mention thermal expansion.
|
Thermal expansion? Do you have any idea how much temperature has to
rise for thermal expansion to have any effect? And you accuse me of
childish scientific logic? A tank filled with 85 gallons of water at 50
degrees would have to be increased to 120 degrees for that volume to
increase by just 1 gallon. The density differences at higher or lower
temperatures is very low, for example, cooling water from 39 degrees F
to 0 degrees F expands it 0.1%. Not to mention the fact that water ice
is already expanded to a far greater volume than it could ever be when
it is heated, and the fact that only the surface water would be affected
by thermal expansion. Unless of course you feel that global warming
happens from the inside out. And guess what happens to that water as it
heats? It goes to the top, while cooler water falls to the bottom,
further limiting the effect of thermal expansion. Leave the expansion to
water tanks and pipelines, it will have little effect on the oceans.
| Quote: |
Cold water takes up less
volume than warm water, as the oceans warm their volume will expand even if
no additional water is added.
|
That is incorrect. It depends on how cold the water is. Water that is
under 0 degrees increases in volume as it freezes, then as temperatures
drop it slightly shrinks. Frozen water takes up more volume than any
other temperature of water. As a matter of fact, the expansion
temperature for water as it cools is 4 degrees C, while it is still a
liquid.
| Quote: |
But there will be additional water... from
Greenland, from the Antarctic, from glaciers, from melting permafrost.
|
There is 2 percent of the worlds water held up in ice, that includes
ground ice, permafrost, glaciers, snow, ice crystals, all water that is
frozen. Everything, as I stated in my post. I don't want you getting
all technical like you did with dissociation, so I'd better say that the
amount of water held up in ice is closer to 2.19%.
| Quote: |
By
most scientific estimates the Greenland icesheet alone would raise sea level
5-7 meters if it melted into the sea.
|
Won't happen, not in yours, your kids, their kids, their kids, their
kids and so on lives. Our average temperatures has been claimed to have
increased 0.6 degrees in the last century. Greenland would require an
increase of well over 5 degrees for the ice sheet to melt. If it is
true, and If it continues, and If temperatures rise that much, and If
nothing changes, you are looking at minimum one thousand years in the
future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Right One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all |
|
|
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EFBE63.315634C1@shaw.ca...
| Quote: |
Chom Noamsky wrote:
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EF9A24.4EDEC823@shaw.ca...
The amount of water on Earth has never changed and will never change.
Not true, there is a set amount of oxygen and hydrogen. Photochemical
dissociation can break up water into hydrogen and oxygen. Photosynthesis
is
CO2 + H2O + sunlight produces organic compounds and oxygen. Burning
hydrogen and oxygen creates water. Animal respiration takes oxygen and
produces CO2. Atmospheric hydrogen is so light that it escapes the
earth's
gravity and is lost forever.
Getting a little picky, are we? Actually you are getting incredibly
picky. Aside from rare and minute changes, such as dissociation, the
amount of water on Earth is roughly the same as it was after the planet
was created.
It only changes states. Ice takes 9% more space than water does. The
only way that one could argue that the ocean levels would rise is the
properties of water versus ice. While ice tends to float to the top of
water and even rise up from the water, water will find it's own level.
Ice that has reverted its state back to water will join with the water
to find level, and the level of the water will rise proportionally with
the new water that has joined it. The surface area of water on this
planet is considerably larger than the volume taken by ice, so if all
the ice were to melt it would take a considerable amount to cause the
ocean (essentially it is one big ocean, not a bunch of different ones)
to rise a significant measurement. I've read that the total volume of
ice, both grounded and floating, constitutes 2 percent of the worlds
water. If it were to all melt, the volume of non-ice water on Earth
would increase by much less than two percent because we must take into
account the fact that the ice takes 9% more space than water does.
To put it into perspective, if exactly 1 liter of water represented all
of the worlds non-ice water, we would need an ice cube that contained a
mere 20 milliliters of water to represent the ice. When that ice
melts,
our non-ice water would increase from 1000 milliliters to 1020
milliliters, barely measurable in the glass. Now, imagine that we were
to put that glass of water on a table. If that table were exactly 1
square meter, that glass would have to be 70 percent of that area to
accurately represent the Earth. Now, melt that little 20 milliliter
ice
cube (which by the way takes less volume than when it was frozen as
stated above) , and spread that 20 milliliters over 70% of the 1 square
meter area, and you have a water rise in that glass that is so
insignificant that it could be assumed meaningless.
I guess what I am trying to say to you is, very good post.
It was a terrible post, filled with childlike scientific logic. For one
thing, it failed to mention thermal expansion.
Thermal expansion? Do you have any idea how much temperature has to
rise for thermal expansion to have any effect? And you accuse me of
childish scientific logic? A tank filled with 85 gallons of water at 50
degrees would have to be increased to 120 degrees for that volume to
increase by just 1 gallon. The density differences at higher or lower
temperatures is very low, for example, cooling water from 39 degrees F
to 0 degrees F expands it 0.1%. Not to mention the fact that water ice
is already expanded to a far greater volume than it could ever be when
it is heated, and the fact that only the surface water would be affected
by thermal expansion. Unless of course you feel that global warming
happens from the inside out. And guess what happens to that water as it
heats? It goes to the top, while cooler water falls to the bottom,
further limiting the effect of thermal expansion. Leave the expansion to
water tanks and pipelines, it will have little effect on the oceans.
Cold water takes up less
volume than warm water, as the oceans warm their volume will expand even
if
no additional water is added.
That is incorrect. It depends on how cold the water is. Water that is
under 0 degrees increases in volume as it freezes, then as temperatures
drop it slightly shrinks. Frozen water takes up more volume than any
other temperature of water. As a matter of fact, the expansion
temperature for water as it cools is 4 degrees C, while it is still a
liquid.
But there will be additional water... from
Greenland, from the Antarctic, from glaciers, from melting permafrost.
There is 2 percent of the worlds water held up in ice, that includes
ground ice, permafrost, glaciers, snow, ice crystals, all water that is
frozen. Everything, as I stated in my post. I don't want you getting
all technical like you did with dissociation, so I'd better say that the
amount of water held up in ice is closer to 2.19%.
By
most scientific estimates the Greenland icesheet alone would raise sea
level
5-7 meters if it melted into the sea.
Won't happen, not in yours, your kids, their kids, their kids, their
kids and so on lives. Our average temperatures has been claimed to have
increased 0.6 degrees in the last century. Greenland would require an
increase of well over 5 degrees for the ice sheet to melt. If it is
true, and If it continues, and If temperatures rise that much, and If
nothing changes, you are looking at minimum one thousand years in the
future.
|
We learned those things in high school physics
--
Terry Pearson
Internationally Syndicated
Conservative Commentator
------------------------------------------
http://www.rightpoint.org
With A New Look
Shaping Canada's Destiny
==========================
"My words stand the test of time"
~Cherranna Joe
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
--------------------------------------------------
Watch me delete my posts!
~Dumbski
Ahahahahahahahahahahahah
=========================
There are more reputable scientists
defending astrology than defending
"global warming,"
~Ann Coulter
---------------------------------------------------------
"The only green thing about the
socialists, is their envy towards
Alberta Oil."
~Terry Pearson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Teddy Von Frankin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all |
|
|
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EF9A24.4EDEC823@shaw.ca...
| Quote: |
Teddy Von Frankin wrote:
Government uses panic over global warming to increase its own power by
convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be
saved
by letting the government take total control.
Global Warming 101
John Perna
JBS
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Here is an undeniable scientific truth: The volume of the water that is
produced when ice melts is exactly equal to the volume of the water that
the
ice displaced, when it was floating. Water expands when it freezes into
ice.
That is why freezing pipes break. That is why ice floats on top of
water.
If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would
not
go up by one inch, or by one millimeter. If every iceberg in the world
were
to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up at all.
The amount of water on Earth has never changed and will never change.
It only changes states. Ice takes 9% more space than water does. The
only way that one could argue that the ocean levels would rise is the
properties of water versus ice. While ice tends to float to the top of
water and even rise up from the water, water will find it's own level.
Ice that has reverted its state back to water will join with the water
to find level, and the level of the water will rise proportionally with
the new water that has joined it. The surface area of water on this
planet is considerably larger than the volume taken by ice, so if all
the ice were to melt it would take a considerable amount to cause the
ocean (essentially it is one big ocean, not a bunch of different ones)
to rise a significant measurement. I've read that the total volume of
ice, both grounded and floating, constitutes 2 percent of the worlds
water. If it were to all melt, the volume of non-ice water on Earth
would increase by much less than two percent because we must take into
account the fact that the ice takes 9% more space than water does.
To put it into perspective, if exactly 1 liter of water represented all
of the worlds non-ice water, we would need an ice cube that contained a
mere 20 milliliters of water to represent the ice. When that ice melts,
our non-ice water would increase from 1000 milliliters to 1020
milliliters, barely measurable in the glass. Now, imagine that we were
to put that glass of water on a table. If that table were exactly 1
square meter, that glass would have to be 70 percent of that area to
accurately represent the Earth. Now, melt that little 20 milliliter ice
cube (which by the way takes less volume than when it was frozen as
stated above) , and spread that 20 milliliters over 70% of the 1 square
meter area, and you have a water rise in that glass that is so
insignificant that it could be assumed meaningless.
I guess what I am trying to say to you is, very good post.
|
Global warming: the bogus religion of our age
Global warming: the bogus religion of our age
PROF. RICHARD LINDZEN
UK Daily Mail
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The world is heading for environmental catastrophe - or so we are constantly
being told by the politicians and self-appointed experts.
They warn us that unless we take drastic action, the earth will soon be
devastated by climate change and global warming.
Entire species will be lost, crops will be obliterated, floods and famine
will sweep across the planet, and western economies will slide into
depression.
Tonight, Channel 4 will broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle, which
suggests that the whole subject has become such a political hot potato that
other explanations for climate change are not being properly examined.
Certainly, there have been many sweeping predictions of global ruin, few
more emphatic than the report from Sir Nicholas Stern into the economics of
climate change, which states with an air of unchallengeable conviction: 'The
scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very
serious global risks and it demands an urgent global response.'
His study, commissioned by the Government in July 2005 and published amid
much Whitehall hype in October 2006, seemed to carry all the more weight
because Stern is one of the most senior civil servants in Britain, the head
of the Government's economic service.
His conclusions appeared to be based on powerful scientific authority, since
his team of 20 or so officials had drawn on a wide range of published papers
and data.
Tony Blair has described it as the most important document produced during
his ten years as Prime Minister, and urged that the Stern blueprint, with
its calls for more regulation and taxation, be adopted in full.
'The disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future, but in
our lifetimes,' said Blair, who went on to claim that the 'the world faces
nothing more serious, more urgent and more demanding of its leadership than
climate change.'
All this has helped put the Stern report at the very forefront of the
debate. The central theme of it is that there is a near universal consensus
of opinion within the scientific community about the dangers of climate
change. But this is not true.
There is no such unanimity among scientists.
Throughout the 550 pages of his document, Stern continually strikes a
confident note, as if there were no dispute about the issues.
Completely divorced from scientific reality
Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality.
It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there
is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.
In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by
the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't
really sure'.
This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his
report.
He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his
political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon,
of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing
climate history.
There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to
think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the
early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the
early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.
But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has
emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.
So there are no easy certainties about the past - or the future.
Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented
for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this
point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.
At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine
global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and
from microwave sounding units, since 1978.
What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the
apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.
Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by
irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major
fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).
Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'
In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts,
ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the
fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer
in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much
colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames
was often frozen over for months at a time.
Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice
floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.
Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the
Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note
that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and
little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.
Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar
bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that
there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.
Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to
mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme
tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily
responsible for climate change.
Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all -
something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the
fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every
drought and disaster.
Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and
improve his, environment.
There can be little dispute that, more than a century after the peak of the
19th-century industrial revolution, Britain is a cleaner, healthier, less
polluted country than it was in the late Victorian age, when smog, disease
and slums were rife.
Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of
theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.
That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming.
Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry,
is treated with contempt.
Far from being the powerful masterpiece that Blair claimed, Stern's report
is manifestly incompetent.
It is another dodgy dossier, where assertions are presented as facts and
data is twisted to suit a political purpose.
I agree with the economist critic who noted: 'If a student of mine were to
hand in this report as a masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood, I
would give him D for diligence, but more likely I would give him an F for
fail.' We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious
fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous
fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.
Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material
world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than
intellectual rigour from its adherents.
It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are
regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.
And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the
performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or
arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.
What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such
dominance in our public life.
Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control,
more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for
displays of self-important zeal.
The tragedy is that the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern are using bogus science
to push forward this agenda.
Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Teddy Von Frankin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming 101 - Human Made global warming crowd all |
|
|
"The Right One" <tp@rightone.comn> wrote in message
news:gs0Ih.110$Ym.53@pd7urf1no...
| Quote: |
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EFBE63.315634C1@shaw.ca...
Chom Noamsky wrote:
"Bradly Wiebe" <bradlywiebe@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:45EF9A24.4EDEC823@shaw.ca...
The amount of water on Earth has never changed and will never change.
Not true, there is a set amount of oxygen and hydrogen. Photochemical
dissociation can break up water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Photosynthesis
is
CO2 + H2O + sunlight produces organic compounds and oxygen. Burning
hydrogen and oxygen creates water. Animal respiration takes oxygen and
produces CO2. Atmospheric hydrogen is so light that it escapes the
earth's
gravity and is lost forever.
Getting a little picky, are we? Actually you are getting incredibly
picky. Aside from rare and minute changes, such as dissociation, the
amount of water on Earth is roughly the same as it was after the planet
was created.
It only changes states. Ice takes 9% more space than water does.
The
only way that one could argue that the ocean levels would rise is the
properties of water versus ice. While ice tends to float to the top
of
water and even rise up from the water, water will find it's own
level.
Ice that has reverted its state back to water will join with the
water
to find level, and the level of the water will rise proportionally
with
the new water that has joined it. The surface area of water on this
planet is considerably larger than the volume taken by ice, so if all
the ice were to melt it would take a considerable amount to cause the
ocean (essentially it is one big ocean, not a bunch of different
ones)
to rise a significant measurement. I've read that the total volume
of
ice, both grounded and floating, constitutes 2 percent of the worlds
water. If it were to all melt, the volume of non-ice water on Earth
would increase by much less than two percent because we must take
into
account the fact that the ice takes 9% more space than water does.
To put it into perspective, if exactly 1 liter of water represented
all
of the worlds non-ice water, we would need an ice cube that contained
a
mere 20 milliliters of water to represent the ice. When that ice
melts,
our non-ice water would increase from 1000 milliliters to 1020
milliliters, barely measurable in the glass. Now, imagine that we
were
to put that glass of water on a table. If that table were exactly 1
square meter, that glass would have to be 70 percent of that area to
accurately represent the Earth. Now, melt that little 20 milliliter
ice
cube (which by the way takes less volume than when it was frozen as
stated above) , and spread that 20 milliliters over 70% of the 1
square
meter area, and you have a water rise in that glass that is so
insignificant that it could be assumed meaningless.
I guess what I am trying to say to you is, very good post.
It was a terrible post, filled with childlike scientific logic. For
one
thing, it failed to mention thermal expansion.
Thermal expansion? Do you have any idea how much temperature has to
rise for thermal expansion to have any effect? And you accuse me of
childish scientific logic? A tank filled with 85 gallons of water at 50
degrees would have to be increased to 120 degrees for that volume to
increase by just 1 gallon. The density differences at higher or lower
temperatures is very low, for example, cooling water from 39 degrees F
to 0 degrees F expands it 0.1%. Not to mention the fact that water ice
is already expanded to a far greater volume than it could ever be when
it is heated, and the fact that only the surface water would be affected
by thermal expansion. Unless of course you feel that global warming
happens from the inside out. And guess what happens to that water as it
heats? It goes to the top, while cooler water falls to the bottom,
further limiting the effect of thermal expansion. Leave the expansion to
water tanks and pipelines, it will have little effect on the oceans.
Cold water takes up less
volume than warm water, as the oceans warm their volume will expand
even
if
no additional water is added.
That is incorrect. It depends on how cold the water is. Water that is
under 0 degrees increases in volume as it freezes, then as temperatures
drop it slightly shrinks. Frozen water takes up more volume than any
other temperature of water. As a matter of fact, the expansion
temperature for water as it cools is 4 degrees C, while it is still a
liquid.
But there will be additional water... from
Greenland, from the Antarctic, from glaciers, from melting permafrost.
There is 2 percent of the worlds water held up in ice, that includes
ground ice, permafrost, glaciers, snow, ice crystals, all water that is
frozen. Everything, as I stated in my post. I don't want you getting
all technical like you did with dissociation, so I'd better say that the
amount of water held up in ice is closer to 2.19%.
By
most scientific estimates the Greenland icesheet alone would raise sea
level
5-7 meters if it melted into the sea.
Won't happen, not in yours, your kids, their kids, their kids, their
kids and so on lives. Our average temperatures has been claimed to have
increased 0.6 degrees in the last century. Greenland would require an
increase of well over 5 degrees for the ice sheet to melt. If it is
true, and If it continues, and If temperatures rise that much, and If
nothing changes, you are looking at minimum one thousand years in the
future.
We learned those things in high school physics
|
Gee Terry, you went to school and learned some basic science...wow......
So chicken little and the sky is falling was just a government science
project..
Global warming: the bogus religion of our age
PROF. RICHARD LINDZEN
UK Daily Mail
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The world is heading for environmental catastrophe - or so we are constantly
being told by the politicians and self-appointed experts.
They warn us that unless we take drastic action, the earth will soon be
devastated by climate change and global warming.
Entire species will be lost, crops will be obliterated, floods and famine
will sweep across the planet, and western economies will slide into
depression.
Tonight, Channel 4 will broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle, which
suggests that the whole subject has become such a political hot potato that
other explanations for climate change are not being properly examined.
Certainly, there have been many sweeping predictions of global ruin, few
more emphatic than the report from Sir Nicholas Stern into the economics of
climate change, which states with an air of unchallengeable conviction: 'The
scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very
serious global risks and it demands an urgent global response.'
His study, commissioned by the Government in July 2005 and published amid
much Whitehall hype in October 2006, seemed to carry all the more weight
because Stern is one of the most senior civil servants in Britain, the head
of the Government's economic service.
His conclusions appeared to be based on powerful scientific authority, since
his team of 20 or so officials had drawn on a wide range of published papers
and data.
Tony Blair has described it as the most important document produced during
his ten years as Prime Minister, and urged that the Stern blueprint, with
its calls for more regulation and taxation, be adopted in full.
'The disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future, but in
our lifetimes,' said Blair, who went on to claim that the 'the world faces
nothing more serious, more urgent and more demanding of its leadership than
climate change.'
All this has helped put the Stern report at the very forefront of the
debate. The central theme of it is that there is a near universal consensus
of opinion within the scientific community about the dangers of climate
change. But this is not true.
There is no such unanimity among scientists.
Throughout the 550 pages of his document, Stern continually strikes a
confident note, as if there were no dispute about the issues.
Completely divorced from scientific reality
Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality.
It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there
is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.
In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by
the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't
really sure'.
This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his
report.
He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his
political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon,
of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing
climate history.
There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to
think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the
early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the
early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.
But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has
emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.
So there are no easy certainties about the past - or the future.
Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented
for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this
point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.
At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine
global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and
from microwave sounding units, since 1978.
What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the
apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.
Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by
irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major
fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).
Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'
In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts,
ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the
fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer
in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much
colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames
was often frozen over for months at a time.
Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice
floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.
Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the
Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note
that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and
little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.
Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar
bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that
there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.
Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to
mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme
tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily
responsible for climate change.
Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all -
something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the
fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every
drought and disaster.
Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and
improve his, environment.
There can be little dispute that, more than a century after the peak of the
19th-century industrial revolution, Britain is a cleaner, healthier, less
polluted country than it was in the late Victorian age, when smog, disease
and slums were rife.
Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of
theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.
That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming.
Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry,
is treated with contempt.
Far from being the powerful masterpiece that Blair claimed, Stern's report
is manifestly incompetent.
It is another dodgy dossier, where assertions are presented as facts and
data is twisted to suit a political purpose.
I agree with the economist critic who noted: 'If a student of mine were to
hand in this report as a masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood, I
would give him D for diligence, but more likely I would give him an F for
fail.' We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious
fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous
fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.
Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material
world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than
intellectual rigour from its adherents.
It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are
regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.
And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the
performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or
arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.
What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such
dominance in our public life.
Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control,
more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for
displays of self-important zeal.
The tragedy is that the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern are using bogus science
to push forward this agenda.
Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
| Quote: |
--
Terry Pearson
Internationally Syndicated
Conservative Commentator
------------------------------------------
http://www.rightpoint.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
1330 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
